Author: Simone Fattorini
Publisher:
ISBN: 9788130802978
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 317
Get Book
Book Description
Foreword - In the last twenty years, insect conservation has attracted the attention of an increasing number of researchers, as testified by the publication of textbooks [e.g. 1, 2], monographs [e.g. 3, 4], proceedings of symposia, workshops and congresses [e.g. 5-9] and two dedicated journals (Journal of Insect Conservation, started 1997 and Insect Conservation and Diversity, a recently started journal). This book is not intended to be a balanced, comprehensive, and up-to-date review of the latest developments in the fields of insect ecology and conservation. Rather, it is a selection of papers representing different perspectives in insect conservation. The conceptual understanding needed to guide our actions in response to practical conservation problems obviously builds on basic researches in the fields of evolutionary biology, genetics, systematics, ethology, biogeography and ecology [e.g. 10]. The papers presented here offer a range of relevant and emerging themes that form the ecological basis of modern insect conservation. Insects are frequently used as model systems in conservation biology. However, in contrast with the veritable mountain of papers devoted to the conservation of single vertebrate species, most of the research on insect conservation is multi-species oriented, being more focused on the preservation of species assemblages than single species (see, for examples, papers published in the Journal of Insect Conservation). The paper by Eva Maria Griebeler, Henning Maas and Michael Veith presented here exemplifies current topics in landscape ecology and metapopulation biology from an entomological perspective. This paper, focused on the viability of the red-winged grasshopper Oedipoda germanica in a dynamic mosaic of vineyards and abandoned lots in Germany, is an example of a species-oriented approach showing the importance of collecting accurate field data and using appropriate simulation models to draw valid conclusions about the future of a population. Because basic knowledge, money and time are limited, one of the most debated problems in conservation biology is the use of indicator taxa as surrogates of the biodiversity of other taxa [11-15]. This is particularly compelling for highly diverse areas, ecosystems, or animal groups (like insects) where it is difficult, or even impossible, to obtain complete inventories. Although aquatic insects have long played an important role in conservation biology (e.g. as bioindicators of water quality), few studies have examined whether species richness community structure in different groups of stream insects shows similar patterns, whether these patterns are governed by similar responses to the environment, and whether there is temporal variability. In their paper on the among-taxon congruence in four major stream insects groups in Finland, Jani Heino and Heikki Mykrä found that predictions of species richness from environmental and spatial variables may be limited, and should be used with caution in conservation planning. They also found that no single stream insect group can be used as a surrogate of species richness and assemblage dissimilarity in other taxonomic groups and that the relationships between species richness and ecological gradients are variable and usually weak. These findings underline the need to also consider taxonomically difficult groups and to promote taxonomic studies and skills as essential prerequisites for effective conservation actions. Simon Grove, Dick Bashford and Marie Yee present here a long-term study with an extraordinary taxonomic effort to identify all saproxylic (dead wood-dependent) beetles associated with large logs in Tasmania's wet eucalypt production forests. They demonstrate the enormous richness of the saproxylic beetle fauna able to occupy Eucalyptus obliqua logs in their early stages of decomposition. This paper offers an example of an experimental approach to the conservation implications of declining availability of large logs, and shows that obligately saproxylic species were more numerous than facultative species. Because of temporal and financial limitations, most conservation studies resort to a 'snapshot' approach, which documents the fauna at a particular 'point' in time (which may span a year or more) and may or may not also attempt to document temporal changes. The study presented here underlines the importance of long-term analyses. This is especially compelling for saproxylic beetles, as there is a succession of species according to the age of decaying logs. Thanks to the long-term approach, these authors were able to show that very few species were common, and most were rare. In this paper rare species are considered those with few individuals sampled. In addition to local population density, other important dimensions of rarity of a species may be its geographical range and degree of ecological specialization, and these forms of rarity are discussed in other chapters. Species rarity assessment is one of the most important targets in conservation biology. The strong link between conservation and rarity lies in the idea that rare species have a greater threat of extinction than common species do [16-18]. Thus, conservation of rare species is driven by the view that the central goal of conservation is to prevent or limit the extinction of species. But, how well can the distribution (and hence the concentration) of geographically rare species be predicted by environmental characteristics? Jorge Miguel Lobo, Pierre Jay-Robert and Jean-Pierre Lumaret present an analysis of the spatial distribution of dung beetle rarity in France. In the paper published here, they considered three measures of geographical rarity (number of rare species, sum of rarity scores, and mean of rarity scores) to derive a synthetic rarity value. Based on this index, they found that for Scarabaeidae, rarity hotspots corresponded to diversity (species richness) hotspots. In this scenario, the species of Scarabaeidae with comparatively larger distributions and wider environmental adaptations should be more likely to persist. In contrast, rarity and species richness were uncorrelated for Aphodiinae. They argued that the distribution of warm-adapted, rare species of Scarabaeidae and Aphodiinae that have recently expanded range from southern refuges since the last glacial period would be explained by current climatic factors, while the cold-adapted Aphodiinae rare species that recently suffered a range contraction would be less predictable by contemporary environmental variables. Thus, this study underlines that rarity hotspots cannot be predicted only by current ecological factors, but historical factors have to also be taken into account to explain some patterns. The importance of historical biogeography in explaining current distribution patterns and in predicting future population dynamics is stressed in a paper on the conservation biogeography of Anatolian orthopterans by Battal Çiplak. In this paper, Çiplak uses an analogy between interglacial cycles and global warming to predict the future of glacial relicts (taxa confined to high altitude since the last Ice Age). Global warming is considered the main evolutionary force acting on global biodiversity and this action is similar to the effects of past interglacial warming periods. The Anatolian peninsula was an important refugial area during Pleistocene glaciations, but, during each warming cycle, some cold-preferring species remained isolated on the summits of mountain ranges. The consequences of global warming for these relict forms may involve niche changes, range changes and population/species extinction, depending on species ecological tolerances, evolutionary potential and dispersal abilities. Some species could change easily their range, by shifting their distribution latitudinally (northwards) or altitudinally (upwards) in response to increasing temperature, but other species will be reduced to fragmented populations and may become extinct in the absence of suitable habitats outside their present distribution range. This is especially true for rare species, endemic to individual mountains, that cannot colonize other areas. Thus, this paper not only shows how the study of past events can be used to predict the future of species dynamics, but also underlines the importance of macro- and microgeographic constraints in determining range changes. Although the size of the geographical range of a species is an obvious measure of rarity, other forms of rarity should be considered, especially at smaller scales. In their paper on true rare and pseudo-rare species, Paulo A. V. Borges, Karl I. Ugland, Francisco O. Dinis and Clara S. Gaspar used the insect and spider guilds on the island of Terceira (Azores) to shed light upon how recent historical land-use changes may shape the distribution of individual arthropod species. Island biogeography provided most of the conceptual foundations of conservation biology and for a long time the theory of island biogeography dominated much of conservation biology [19]. Although this prominent role is now reduced by the increasing role of other disciplines (like metapopulation biology and landscape ecology) [cf. 19, 20], island biogeography still provides an important theoretical and empirical framework for conservationists [e.g. 21-23]. Islands are natural laboratories and island populations will continue to represent a privileged target for conservationists. Results obtained by Borges and coworkers indicate that numerous species may appear unduly rare because they are sampled in marginal sites or at the edge of their distribution. The high dispersal abilities and wide ecological preferences of many insect and spider species imply that many species tend to be vagrants in several habitats and consequently are locally habitat pseudo-rare species. By contrast, truly regionally rare species are those that are habitat specialists and many of them are threatened endemic species or recently introduced exotic species. These findings provide clear evidence that adequate spatial data on abundance and habitat requirements of single species are needed to properly assess their rarity status at a regional scale. Basic ecological information is an essential starting point for any conservation study and subsequent action. However, in most cases, there is a serious lack of basic knowledge about biological processes for taxa which are of conservation concern. In their paper on thermoregulation in dung beetles José R. Verdú and Jorge M. Lobo explore the relevance of heat production and dissipation temperature control mechanisms on the ecology and biogeography of these insects. Dung beetles include some of the most investigated species from the point of view of thermoregulation process. Verdú and Lobo offer a review of the relationships between flight and thermoregulation, also providing new data on the variation in thermoregulation among species, populations and individuals. They show that both heat production and heat dissipation could be the consequence of evolutionarily contingent adaptations related to the environmental conditions of the regions where the different lineages evolved. Thermal preferences are a neglected species trait in bioconservation. Since preliminary evidence suggests that populations and individuals have a wide physiological plasticity, it will be interesting to assess whether those species with a higher range of endothermic responses are also able to inhabit a higher variety of climatic conditions. An interesting future line of research could be the comparison of the thermal niches between invaders and non-invader dung beetles, as well as between those species that seem to respond quickly or slowly to climatic changes. Conservation research has been mostly focused on some well known insect groups, like butterflies and some beetle families, but the majority of insect taxa are ignored. This is an obvious consequence of the extraordinary variety of insects, and the impracticality of all groups being equally investigated. Tenebrionid beetles are a large family of beetles for which ecological knowledge is still relatively limited, especially in coastal sandy areas, where they represent one of the most important invertebrate groups by both biomass and diversity. Thus, they are an important, but usually neglected taxon, in these highly threatened environments. I present here an extensive review of the ecology of tenebrionid beetles in Mediterranean coastal areas, providing some clues about their conservation and their use as bioindicators in environmental assessment studies. In collecting papers for this book, I made an effort to cover as many major insect taxa as possible. However, the taxonomic coverage is obviously unbalanced and the lack of papers specifically dealing with the conservation of some taxa, like butterflies or ground beetles, which are among the most studied from a conservation perspective [24-26], may be surprising. However, I believe that this is not a serious shortcoming, because these groups are extensively referred to in other books devoted to insect conservation [e.g. 1, 2, 5-7, 9]. What we have come up with finally, I think, is not a thorough survey of the field of insect ecology and conservation, but rather an invitation to the field issued by some of its worldwide practitioners. Not all readers will be equally interested in every chapter, but I feel that most readers will find something interesting and will be stimulated especially by chapters dealing with subjects outside their own fields of study. This volume begun as a response to an invitation by the Research Signpost. I thank Shankar G. Pandalai, Managing Editor of Research Signpost for encouraging me to edit this volume and for all his assistance during the process. I welcome this opportunity to express publicly my obligation to all the contributors for responding so rapidly to my bullying and for sending their manuscripts so rapidly. References 1. Samways, M. J. 1994, Insect Conservation Biology, Chapman and Hall, London. 2. Samways, M. J. 2005, Insect Diversity Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 3. van Swaay, C. A. M., and Warren, M. S. 1999, Red data book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera), Nature and environment, No. 99, Council of European Publishing, Strasbourg. 4. van Swaay, C. A. M., and Warren, M. S. 2003, Prime butterfly areas in Europe: Priority sites for conservation. National Reference Centre for Agriculture, Nature and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Fisheries, The Netherlands. 5. Gaston, K. J., New, T. R., and Samways, M.J. (Eds) 1993, Perspectives on Insect Conservation [mainly from presentations given on the theme of insect conservation at the International Congress of Entomology in Beijing], Intercept Press, London. 6. Collins, N. M., and Thomas, J. A. 1991 (Eds), The conservation of insects and their habitats, 15th Symposium of the Royal Entomological Society of London, Academic Press, San Diego. 7. Harrington, R., and Stork, N. E. (Eds) 1995, Insects in a changing environment, 17th Symposium of the Royal Entomological Society of London, Academic Press, San Diego. 8. Procter, D., and Harding, P. T. (Eds). 2005, JNCC Report No. 367. Proceedings of INCardiff 2003. Red Lists for invertebrates: their application at different spatial scales practical issues, pragmatic approaches. 14th European Invertebrate Survey Colloquium and meeting, 7th meeting of the Bern Group of Invertebrate Experts, 1st meeting of the IUCN European Invertebrates Specialist Group. JNCC Peterborough, Peterborough. 9. Stewart, A. A., New, T. R., and Lewis, O. T. (Eds). 2007, Insect Conservation Biology, 23rd Symposium of the Royal Entomological Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 10. Primak, R.B. 1998, Essentials of Conservation Biology, Second Edition, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland. 11. Vessby, K., Sodersrom, B., Glimskar, A., and Svensson, B. 2002, Conserv. Biol., 16, 430. 12. Moore, J.L., Balmford, A., Brooks, T., Burgess, N.D., Hansen, L.A., Rahbek, C., and Williams, P.H. 2003, Conserv. Biol., 17, 207. 13. Anand, M., Laurence, S., and Rayfield, B. 2005, Conserv. Biol., 19, 955. 14. Maes, D., Bauwens, D., De Bruyn, L., Anselin, A., Vermeersch, G., Van Landuyt, W., De Knijf, G., and Gilbert, M. 2005, Biodiv. Conserv., 14, 1345. 15. Fleishman, E., Thomson, J. R., Mac Nally, R., Murphy, D. D., and Fay, J.P. 2005, Conserv. Biol., 19, 1125. 16. Gaston, K.J. 1994, Rarity. Chapman and Hall, London. 17. Thomas, C.D., Cameron, A., Green, R.E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L.J., Collingham, Y.C., Erasmus, B.F.N., Ferreira de Siqueira, M., Grainger, A., Hannah, L., Hughes, L., Huntley, B., van Jaarsveld, A.S., Midgley, G.F., Miles, L., Ortega-Huerta, M.A., Peterson, A.T., Phillips, O.L., and Williams, S.E. 2004, Nature, 427, 145. 18. Gaston, K.J., and Spicer, J.I. 2001, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 10, 179. 19. Hanski, I., and Gilpin, M.E. (Eds) 1997, Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution, Academic Press, San Diego. 20. Walter, H. 2004. J. Biogeogr., 31, 177. 21. Whittaker, R.J., Araújo, M. B., Jepson, P., Ladle, R. J., Watson, J. E. M., and Willis, K. J. 2005, Diversity Distrib., 11, 3. 22. Fattorini, S. 2006a, Anim. Conserv., 9, 75. 23. Fattorini, S. 2006, Conserv. Biol., 20, 1169. 24. Pullin, A. (Ed.) 1995, Ecology and Conservation of Butterflies, Chapman & Hall, London. 25. Boggs, C.L., Watt, W.B., and Ehrlich, P.R. (Eds) 2003, Butterflies: Ecology and Evolution Taking Flight, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 26. Stork, N.E. (Ed.) 1990, The Role of Ground Beetles in Ecological and Environmental Studies, Intercept, Andover.
Author: Hans Turin
Author: T.R. New
Author: K. Desender
Author: D. Johan Kotze
Author: Kevin Gutzwiller
Author: T. R. New
Author: Olivier Honnay
Author: Roy Anderson
Author: David Whyte Macdonald